AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 217, 16 August 1878, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, August 13. (Before H. H. Fenton, Esq., J.P., and his Worship the Mayor.) disorderly conduct. Jules Lelievre, John Rodriguea, Edward Brown, and Harry Munro, four boys, were charged with having been guilty of disorderly conduct at the residence of Justin Aylnier, Esq., on Thursday evening, the Bth inst. Walter Parsons was called as a witness for the prosecution, but, on being put into the box, denied having been in company with the accused on the evening named. It appeared that this witness had been inculpated in the disturbance himself, and had afterwards given information against the other boys with a view of saving himself. Finding his chief witness recalcitrant, Sergeant Ramsay asked for an adjournment till to-day, which was granted. (The Resident Magistrate here took his seat upon the Bench.) CATTLE TRESPASS. T. S. Johnson 'and J. Hammond were each fined 10s and costs for this offence. BREACH OF EDUCATION ACT, 1877. Edward Chapman was charged by the Chairman of the Robinson's Bay School Committee with neglecting to send his child to school. This is the first case, we believe, which has been brought before a Court on the Peninsula under the compulsory clauses of the Education Act. Mr Nalder appeared for the defendant. Mr W. Whitfield, Chairman of the Robinson's Bay School Committee produced the minute-book, showing that the Committee had determined on bringing the compulsory clauses of the Act into force, also copy of notice which he had served on defendant. In reply, he had received what he considered an insulting letter from defendant (produced), whereupon he took the present proceedings. Defendant's child had not been sent to school. By Mr Nalder—The child hadjbeen attending school for four months. For the defence, Mr Nalder contended that under section 89 of the Act, all that was required was that children should be sent to school " half the time during which the shool is usually open." This time could evidently be, any portion __of the school year. Some discussion ensued on this point, Mr Whitfield urging that if this view were correct, it would render the compulsory clauses inoperative. If parents could keep their children away at any time they thought fit, Committees would be powerless. Parents could say they intended to send them at some future period in the year. He understood the Act to mean that children must be present during some portion of each week, otherwise how was it that a penalty was imposed for each week of absence ? Defendant made a statement to the effect that the child had been taken away in consequence of illness in his family. He had no intention of keeping her away from school. He should send her again as soon as possible. Under the circumstances, the Bench decided to dismiss the case, but did not feel themselves bound to give a decision on the point raised by Mr Nalder. Civil Case. J. J. Kissel v. G. Robinson. Claim, £11 lis 3d. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs L. Le Valliant v. James Brown. Claim £7 10s, for share of boundary fence. Mr Nalder appeared for defendant. The facts, which were undisputed, were as follows :—The fence in question had been destroyed by a fire, for which it was not alleged that plaintiff was responsible. After considerable delay, and defendant failing to replace it, plaintiff did so at his own cost. It appeared that he had proceeded to erect the fence before giving the notice required by the Fencing Ordinance. For the defence it was contended that the giving this notice was a condition precedent to plaintiff commencing the work, and that therefore he could not recover. The Bench reserved their decision] till this day. The Court then adjourned. Thursday, August 15. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M.,) LUNACY. On the evidence of Drs Watkins and Guthrie, a lunatic was ordered to be sent to Sunnyside Asylum, Christchurch. Constable M'Gorrnan stated that from information received he had arrested the person at present in custody as unfit to be at large, and adduced evidence showing that he was evidently suffering from some mental malady. Mr T. S. Baker, of French Farm, gave evidence to a. similar effect, the Bench making order as above. The Court then adjourned.